Talk:.nfo

Remove untrusted sources

I propose removal of soft that do not have a dedicated web page. It means that their creator do not care that much about supporting the tool with a decent web page. This kind of tools may not be trusted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.97.248.74 (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't be serious! Websites like Softpedia are there to test and review software coming exactly from developers who cannot afford an own website or do not see the need for a website just because they have written a small program. Geez, 10 years ago nobody would have set up a website just to host their own programs. If anything we should not trust programs hosted on the creators website, but rather trust the ones reviewed and archived by the big freeware sites. My guess is you are no older than maybe 16 years and thus didn't learn that there once was a world without internet :-) Back in the day we used to distribute software by (copying) floppy disks and postal mail! 92.107.212.54 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep description simple

Example of spammy description: NFOpad A full-featured NFO/DIZ/TXT editor/viewer. Freeware. Let others decide if your program has enough features.

Not an easy solution

Many tools in the "Platform independent" are not viewers but converters. This is way too complex for this page. Soon they will start to add all kind of unrelated tools. Also many "programs" are not quite programs but pieces of PHP code. A regular user who barely knows what a NFO file is will not be able to install his PHP server to run that script. I propose this section for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedra (talk • contribs) 11:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Promotional language

Please don't use words like "popular" and "tip" to promote your software. Let other to decide if your software is popular, not yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedra (talk • contribs) 11:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Encoding

"Instead of using the old code page 437 extended ASCII characters, modern ASCII art uses the current de-facto web standard ISO-8859-1/ISO-8859-15 or Unicode UTF-8 characters." Never seen that in my wanders. Infact anything outside CP437 has a tendecny to be a crap NFO, including trademark and register symbols. You can convert nfo to unicode correct but I haven't seen any of those in pre'd stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.89.238 (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro is wrong

"The purpose of an NFO file is similar to that of the FILE ID.DIZ which can be found in many ZIP archives today and during the era of the BBS." Umm, no it's not. The DIZ file is just a descriptor that gives the name of the archive, and file count. An NFO provides release notes. 0Day groups have been packing NFOs and DIZs together for years, because they serve a completely different purpose. 153.111.226.201 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct sir! — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I second that, whoever wrote the stuff about a new defacto standard is wrong. Only a handful of groups do this, most likely due to ignorance. 158.39.124.101 (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.198.203 (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 

NFO Tools

Can another editor come by and take a look at the edit dispute between me and anon over the NFO tools? Im afraid of running over 3rr. Copysan 06:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the anon. I think links to programs that work with NFO files is fine. As I noted back in July, a collection of links to sites encouraging the breaking of copyright is something that we can just do without. But then you just reverted me with no discussions here. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How do NFO files encourage violating copyright? In that case, we should remove links on the page for isonews and/or nforce and the link to the "first" nfo file. Plus I was trying to avoid advertising by linking to the defacto list of tools, which includes all the tools already listed and more. Copysan 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Now comes the link spam. THis is what we reap for allowing some nfo tools. Now everybdoy feels their iteration of nfo viewers is improtant. Copysan 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The best NFO editor is? (IMHO) Dos Navigator and DosBox.. ctrl+p, shift+arrows, ctrl+ins, shift+ins, without end of lines.. Enjoy. :) BTW. NfoViewer, QInfo (another Linux stuff). NoName 20:59, 21 Aug 2009 (CET/CEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.234.33.202 (talk)

Folio Infobase

What are "Folio Infobase" files and how do I read them? Bastie 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

DAMN-NFO link

For some reason, Phobie (talk · contribs) and misc anon IPs (the latest being 84.176.241.182 (talk · contribs) with the same message that Phobie used previously), continue to change the link to a .biz domain. .biz domains are notoriously spam and ad heavy. The link to softpedia is a more well-known internet resource with a known good reputation (and less likely to hit corporate firewalls). I am not the only one, Copysan (talk · contribs) seems to have implicitly agreed when they did the same revert. So, the people pushing .biz, please feel free to participate in this discussion. Continuously changing article text without discussion is considered vandalism, so please give us a reason softpedia is not good enough. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 19:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I hereby explicitly agree. Copysan 20:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam

Seems the NFO viewers links is getting spammy again... Copysan 21:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Links

I just want to say I think some useful links were removed in this edit and I plan to add some when I have time to sort out the good ones from the non-noteworthy. While I agree there were lot of unneeded links, some of them seem to be very appropriate. Cheers SF007 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Linkfarm

I've removed the linkfarm per WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. I'll monitor the page to prevent this reoccurring problem from happening once again. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://gitorious.org/nfoview/mainline/blobs/raw/master/NEWS
  • In .nfo on 2011-05-20 22:31:50, 404 Not Found
  • In .nfo on 2011-05-31 15:06:44, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

AmigaOS Icons

AmigaOS icon files, when transferred to a 8.3 name format file system (like FAT-12 or FAT-16), were also often named ".NFO" (the original extension being ".info"). 79.219.112.144 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflation of unrelated .nfo formats

This article is primarily about plain-text warez scene release metadata files. However, the Software section mentions home theater software using and generating .nfo files, and explicitly says these files are plain text. This is not true, as is obvious here. The .nfo files generated by home theater software are XML files, somewhat interoperable between software but only following tag convention rather than a spec.

I am uncertain of the historical relationship between warez .nfo files and home theater .nfo files, if there is any. But for all intents and purposes they are totally unrelated formats today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metanomial (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)